Friday, July 01, 2005

Weekly Jackass Number Thirty-Three: Paul Krugman

In a remarkably defeatist screed, delivered practically on the eve of the anniversary of our nation's Declaration of Independence, Paul Krugman declares unconditional surrender in Iraq. Krugman's lack of faith in his nation is stunning. He declares we are held hostage by the man we elected twice as our president in a free expression of our will:

America has been taken hostage by his martial dreams. According to Mr. Bush, the nation now has no choice except to keep fighting the war he wanted to fight. Never mind that Iraq posed no threat before we invaded. Now it's a "central front in the war on terror," Mr. Bush says, quoting Osama bin Laden as an authority. And since a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would, Mr. Bush claims, be a victory for Al Qaeda, Americans have to support this war - and that means supporting him. After all, you wage war with the president you have, not the president you want.

How many lies can you pack in one paragraph? The war Bush 'wanted to fight'? As if the President were some bloodthirsty conqueror oblivious to the tragedy of war...Iraq posed no threat? The lack of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction doesn't mean Saddam didn't want them - would Krugman have preferred us to wait until Saddam had the weapons and was unstoppable, in the manner of Kim Jong-Il? Is there a better authority to quote on the centrality of Iraq to the War on Terror than the man who knocked down the World Trade Centers? Should Bush quote, God forbid, Paul Krugman?

Krugman then implies that our poor little ol' army just isn't up to the task:

...Time is running out for America's volunteer military, which is cracking under the strain of a war it was never designed to fight.

So what would happen if the United States gave up its open-ended commitment to Iraq and set a timetable for withdrawal?

Mr. Bush claims that such a step would "send the wrong signal to our troops, who need to know that we are serious about completing the mission." But what the troops need to know is that their country won't demand more than they can give.

Krugman then glibly asserts three 'truths' that aren't evident to anyone but himself:

Despite everything that has happened, many Americans still want to believe that this war can and should be seen through to victory. But it's time to face up to three realities [sic]. First, the war is helping, not hurting, the terrorists. Second, the kind of clear victory the hawks promised is no longer possible, if it ever was. Third, a time limit on our commitment will do more good than harm.

What is it with the Times and its magical series of 'realities'? How is it that Kofi Annan can see the progress in Iraq - Kofi Annan, mind you - but Paul Krugman can't? And for God's sake, a time limit on our occupation? This is nonsense of a most dangerous breed.

Krugman winds it up with a series of paragraphs remarkable even by his exceedingly low standards:

The Iraq that emerges once U.S. forces are gone won't bear much resemblance to the free-market, pro-American, Israel-friendly democracy the neocons promised. But it will pose less of a terrorist threat than the Iraq we have now.

Remember, Iraq wasn't a breeding ground for terrorists before we went there. All indications are that the foreign terrorists now infesting Iraq are there on the sufferance of a homegrown insurgency that finds them useful for the moment but that, brutal as it is, isn't interested in an apocalyptic confrontation with the Western world. Once we're no longer targets, the foreign terrorists won't be welcome.

The point is that the presence of American forces in Iraq is making our country less safe. So it's time to start winding down the war.

Where to begin with this excrement? Pro-Israel? Paul, we'll settle for an Iraq that no longer pays the families of Palestinian suicide bombers...how's that for a breeding ground for terrorists? The American forces can't stop the terrorists, but the pathetic remnants of the Baathist party can? Bull...

Krugman's submissiveness to our enemies would be laughable if it weren't for his influence...unfortunately, hundreds of thousands will read this garbage, by virtue of its appearance in the Times. Sadly, this is becoming all too typical of the editorial stance of perhaps the world's most influential newspaper. The Times is becoming an instrument of defeatism.

That Krugman would lend himself to the cause is not surprising. His partisanship has always trumped any qualms he might feel about spreading lies and distorting statistics. If it's harmful to Bush, that's good enough for Paul. Many, many people have taken down this mental midget and his woefully transparent misinformation on numerous occasions. Tom Maguire remains the essential antidote to the Krugman disease; this post is a sample both of Krugman's treachery and Tom's excellent debunking of such.

Krugman, like Noam Chomsky, is deserving of the Weekly Jackass any given week; however, given what's at stake in Iraq, and Krugman's irresponsible advocacy of laying down our arms and leaving 1,700 dead Americans behind for no good reason other than his hatred of George Bush, I can't think of a better week than this one to actually present him with the honor.